It's really a shame! I mean, how could people be so stupid in today's America and go ahead and reelect a hypocrite like him?

Excuse me, aren't these type of things exactly the ones for which one becomes a senator/congressman/elected official? I mean, that's what having power means, to be able to do things for which "simple" people go to jail if they do them -- go with children, kill, whatever!

I am assuming you're being sarcastic; if not, it's a shame you go to law school (if you really do)!

I wouldn't really say it's a shame s/he goes to law school (if s/he really does) -- while there are many people in law school who would cleverly get that message through by means of sarcasm, the majority of law students wouldn't even bother to apply any sarcasm at all when stating that idea.

Excuse me, aren't these type of things exactly the ones for which one becomes a senator/congressman/elected official? I mean, that's what having power means, to be able to do things for which "simple" people go to jail if they do them -- go with children, kill, whatever!

I am assuming you're being sarcastic; if not, it's a shame you go to law school (if you really do)!

I wouldn't really say it's a shame s/he goes to law school (if s/he really does) -- while there are many people in law school who would cleverly get that message through by means of sarcasm, the majority of law students wouldn't even bother to apply any sarcasm at all when stating that idea.

[...]People claim that the word "virgin" in antiquity did not necessarily mean that someone never had sex. It meant instead that a woman was "without" man, which could also mean that she was an independent property owner. Some such women in classical cultures were also sacred prostitutes... or so the story goes. They acted as incarnations of the goddess.[...]

Snay works driving trucks for a yacht dealership in Mendon. He won the $10 million from a $20 scratch ticket purchased at Cumberland Farms in Hopedale. But the lottery winnings also come with unwanted publicity. "He was concerned, but there's not much you can do about it," said Snay's lawyer Joseph M. Fabricotti. "We talked about it and he understood this was one of the repercussions that could happen." Snay's record of sexual assaults dates back to 1974. He has been convicted six times of indecent assault and battery in Massachusetts. Level 3 offenders are considered the most dangerous and the most likely to commit another crime.

Since Madonna essentially based her career riffing off this archetype, it seems only natural. People claim that the word "virgin" in antiquity did not necessarily mean that someone never had sex. It meant instead that a woman was "without" man, which could also mean that she was an independent property owner. Some such women in classical cultures were also sacred prostitutes... or so the story goes. They acted as incarnations of the goddess. A parallel tradition exists still today in some sects of Hinduism with the devadasis. Plus there is that whole psychological trend in the modern culture called the "Virgin/Whore complex" which Madonna played to a tee. Madonna embraced and mocked the virgin/whore complex, ironically flaunted her body as a self-sold commodity and challenged the male gaze all the way to the bank. She proved that there were non-academic, street-savvy ways to express yourself and find empowerment. Madonna was a symbol of unrepressed female creativity and power — sexy, seductive, serious, and strong.

In certain so-called primitive people, a person other than the husband deflowers the fiancée. This practice is followed in order to protect the husband from danger. The bleeding that results from the loss of virginity is associated with physical wounds and death. In a number of so-called primitives, all of sexual life is wrapped in taboos. The woman is feared because of the assumed loss of virility that occurs through physical contact with her and this activates the fear of castration, especially as a result of her first sexual intercourse. But these general considerations may be inadequate. The analysis of female frigidity, however, leads us to consider such other factors as the Oedipus complex, penis envy, the desire to obtain a child from the father as reparation, and hostility towards any man who appears as a poor substitute for the true object of this ancient desire. Thus the husband who avoids deflowering his wife acts thus because he fears losing his penis and, like Holofernes, his life.

Since Madonna essentially based her career riffing off this archetype, it seems only natural. People claim that the word "virgin" in antiquity did not necessarily mean that someone never had sex. It meant instead that a woman was "without" man, which could also mean that she was an independent property owner. Some such women in classical cultures were also sacred prostitutes... or so the story goes. They acted as incarnations of the goddess. A parallel tradition exists still today in some sects of Hinduism with the devadasis. Plus there is that whole psychological trend in the modern culture called the "Virgin/Whore complex" which Madonna played to a tee. Madonna embraced and mocked the virgin/whore complex, ironically flaunted her body as a self-sold commodity and challenged the male gaze all the way to the bank. She proved that there were non-academic, street-savvy ways to express yourself and find empowerment. Madonna was a symbol of unrepressed female creativity and power — sexy, seductive, serious, and strong.

In certain so-called primitive people, a person other than the husband deflowers the fiancée. This practice is followed in order to protect the husband from danger. The bleeding that results from the loss of virginity is associated with physical wounds and death. In a number of so-called primitives, all of sexual life is wrapped in taboos. The woman is feared because of the assumed loss of virility that occurs through physical contact with her and this activates the fear of castration, especially as a result of her first sexual intercourse. But these general considerations may be inadequate. The analysis of female frigidity, however, leads us to consider such other factors as the Oedipus complex, penis envy, the desire to obtain a child from the father as reparation, and hostility towards any man who appears as a poor substitute for the true object of this ancient desire. Thus the husband who avoids deflowering his wife acts thus because he fears losing his penis and, like Holofernes, his life.

Droit de seigneur

Throughout history and in all stages of culture great emphasis has been laid on virginity. Sometimes a high positive value is set upon it as when the husband insists on his wife coming to him as a virgin, although, paradoxically, amongst certain peoples he must not have intercourse with the virgin bride, defloration and the first act of coitus being ritually performed by another. At other times virginity possesses what might be called a negative value.

Droit de seigneur, French for the lord's right, is a term now popularly used to describe a legal right allowing the lord of an estate to deflower the estate's virgins. It is also spelled droit du seigneur, but native French prefer the term droit de cuissage or droit de jambage. A related term is ius primæ noctis (also jus primae noctis), Latin for law (or right) of the first night. Droit de seigneur is often interpreted today as a synonym for ius primae noctis, although it originally referred to a number of other rights as well, including hunting, taxation, and farming.

The existence of a "right of the first night" in the Middle Ages was a disputed topic in the 19th century. Although most historians today would agree that there is no authentic proof of the actual exercise of the custom in the Middle Ages, disagreement continues about the origin, the meaning, and the development of the widespread popular belief in this alleged right and the actual prevalence of symbolic gestures referring to this right. In fact the ius primae noctis was, in the European late medieval context, a widespread popular belief in an ancient privilege of the lord of a manor to share the bed with his peasants' newlywed brides on their wedding nights. Symbolic gestures, reflecting this belief, were developed by the lords and used as humiliating signs of superiority over the dependent peasants in a time of disappearing status differences. The origin of this popular belief is difficult to trace. In the 16th century, Boece referred to the decree of the Scottish king Evenus III that "the lord of the ground shall have the maidenhead of all virgins dwelling on the same". Legend has it that Saint Margaret procured the replacement of jus primae noctis with a bridal tax called merchet. King Evenus III did not exist, and Boece included much clearly fictional material in his account. In literature from the 13th and 14th centuries and in customary law texts of the 15th and 16th centuries, jus primae noctis is also closely related to specific marriage payments of (formerly) unfree people. There is good reason to assume that this relation goes back to the early medieval period and has its roots in the legal condition of unfree people and Gaelic marriage customs.

I read some time ago about a gay guy who went ahead and outed his "mentor." Initially he extorted this married man and was prompted to do so for no real reson other than because the "straight" guy was in essence on a power trip. Basically this guy had taken a little bit of money but, understandably, no respect. No affection, no emotional bonds created -- while the married man just wanted sex the gay one craved for attention on his part. He told his lover's wife about their ongoing relationship and totally @ # ! * e d up his life. He even "swallowed down" a couple of his ribs being broken after the married man took revenge on him..in fact, what he did to him was nothing compared to what happened to the other guy. He was definitely not some kind of "big fish" though, otherwise he would not have ended up being extortioned and outed. Nothing like somebody who'd put a contract on someone to take revenge.

We can not be sure as to what the exact motive of the guy of the story is; nor can we say anything with certainty about the way he presumably addressed his concerns about society's non-acceptance of homosexuality in general. May it be that he did not intend in the first place to get any money for the time spent with the married man? That he, in fact, engaged in a gay relationship with this man, and only later was offered money that he did not refuse? Many young gay people are lured into such kind of relationships; this way the married man did not have to committ emotionally so that he could save his marriage and not be exposed as gay -- you can figure out for yourselves how inclined to pay up such a person is!

On the other hand, it is a fact that only when many high-profile "straight" married men are exposed as gays that the society would come to embrace homosexuality as mainstream. We may pretend that there has to be some other way to make such bisexual males to come out of the closet and accept their sexuality, that we should reshape our mentalities and those of others causing as few casualties as possible in the process. Let's not forget, however, that nothing comes without sacrifice, in fact, a lot of it. For instance, we may be more accepting towards black people today than we were back in the 50s, but do you remember what was necessary to happen in the 60s to bring about the change?

Extortioning and outing are facts of life. They should not be equated with some kind of a gay crusade. In fact, many authors have explored the devastating effects of homosexuals remaining in the closet and have provided intellectual justifications for the practice of outing as a political and journalistic tactic. Michelangelo Signorile, for instance, caused furor in the late 80s and early 90s as he outed billionaire Malcolm Forbes, high-ranking Pentagon official Pete Williams and conservative political activist Phyllis Schlafly's son John. He has advocated that queer Americans come out mentioning the deleterious effects of the closet both on the closeted individual and on society as a whole.

I do not think this guy did it in order to make things better for the gay married men after they are forced to come out of the closet and have a more comprehensive understanding of their sexuality..

I also do not believe he really needed to go ahead and expose the married man, were money not a factor in his decision to out him. He could have simply moved on -- there will be always enough stupid people to pay a lot of money to have gay sex secretly.

As to the "power trip" thing I'd simply remind the reader that the guy was P-A-I-D and although sometimes it hurts to be treated the way he may have been treated, he'd be better off moving on and saving himself the pain of broken ribs! After all, no matter what you may do -- even if you give your own life -- you are not going to save the world! While it is true that the society itself would be at a profit when married guys are exposed as gay, regardless of the eventual casualties, it is a fact that this way of thinking leaves one poor, predisposing such a person to victimization, basically making a stupid martyr out of someone.

They do not say in vain, "God takes care of fools, drunks and our society."